You have probably all seen the clip of Stephen Fry being interviewed on MPs expenses by now. In it he brought some much needed and previously absent common sense to the whole furore. Well today the controversial character of Piers Morgan has waded in saying that Mr. Fry’s views are “extremely stupid” and “naive”. Morgan continues to patronise:
So let me spell out the difference for him in simple, easy-to-understand language: Taxpayers do not pay journalists’ expenses. Very rich people like Rupert Murdoch … do.
…
By dismissing this whole repulsive business as ‘not important’, and trying to claim some sort of moral equivalence between expenses met publicly by the taxpayer and those met privately by media tycoons, Fry is guilty of pathetically pompous grandstanding, and a staggering lack of understanding of both the issue and the very genuine anger felt by the cheated, thieved public. Shame on you, Stephen. I thought you were smarter than that.
Now this reply immediately strikes me as coming from someone who has not taken in the underlying points of the Fry interview. Comparisons were indeed made between MPs’ and Journalists’ and Morgan is right that the two are different, however that completely misses the point that was made, i.e. one of human flaw right across the spectrum.
I agree with Fry that “everyone has fiddled things”, one way or another. Surely most people have done things such as taking extra stationary from the office, kept quiet when undercharged or submitted claims that were liberal with the truth? Of course they may not be on the same scale, but the point is that we all all humanly flawed; we are all naturally programmed to take advantage of situations to the limit, and journalists are some of the worst for that. MPs are just as human, sympathetic, corrupt, morally correct or incorrect as the rest of us.
Another, major, point that has to be considered when deciding just how serious MPs have pushed the rules to the limit is that of their overall pay, and why this system exists in the first place. It is clear, to anyone that has followed the history of this or politics in general, that this additional expenses system was used effectively as a top-up to MPs’ salaries. They have done this because they are reluctant to increase their standard salaries for fear of being seen to profit, when in actual fact they do need a considerable wage to do their jobs and to attract the right people to the job. Ironically in the end it has completely ruined the reputation of MPs that they were trying to preserve.
I believe Mr. Fry was right in his passionate stance that “this is not important… it is not what we are fighting for.” When you step back and look at this, and when you look at others, ‘Sachsgate’; the Russell Brand phone calls etc., yes they are totally undesirable but really are not important relative to the wars we are engaged in, and to the genocide in Africa; to matters of life and death. Whilst there was uproar at expenses this week, four more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
Whilst we should be very concerned and annoyed that some of our elected officials are abusing an amount of taxpayers’ money, we must not let it take precedent over the everything else, and thus be ‘disaffected’ by politics. We should vote. Our votes can enact change in, and the direction of, the great country in which we live. Let’s hold our MPs’ to account, but let us not lose the understanding that human flaws are ever-present, and that what is really important is the big decisions our MPs make that change lives.
Morgan, like so many others, appears to have been blinded by what he wants to hear, rather than what is the most important in grand reality. Poor Stephen Fry has been branded “the MPs’ friend'” when all he was doing was widening the debate into a sensible perspective. Shame on you Piers. I thought you were smarter than that. Well actually, I didn’t!
WATCH: Stephen Fry’s interview on expenses.
READ: Piers Morgan's Blog
- PS. It seems to me that the simple and best solution to this problem is to scrap the allowances and dramatically increase MPs salaries from the current £60K to around £80K. Yes, that is a lot of money, and many people would be horrified by it, but it is the right thing to do. The people who run the country; burdened with all the pressure and responsibility that comes with that task, deserve a high salary which is proportionate to the job. It is the current insufficient salary which has caused this whole problem.
field to sort out any problems and deal with them appropriately. I understand that it is a publicly owned body, but that does not mean an everyday man in the street knows best any more than they would be best qualified to be the Prime Minister. Besides by doing this we weaken the BBC to the point at which is it scared to broadcast anything remotely daring or risky. That can only be a bad thing as far as I am concerned.
